A Tale of Two Eucharists

[Socrates4Jesus]

A clarification:

The substance of something is what it is.

The accidents of something are what it appears to be.

Thank you, Dog. To help me understand you, which definition of substace should i use and which definition of accidents should i use?

sub·stance http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png/ˈsʌbhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngstəns/Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciationsuhb-stuhhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngns]Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation*–noun *
1.that of which a thing consists; physical matter or material: *form and substance. *

2.a species of matter of definite chemical composition: *a chalky substance. *

3.[controlled substance.](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=controlled substance)

4.the subject matter of thought, discourse, study, etc.

5.the actual matter of a thing, as opposed to the appearance or shadow; reality.

6.substantial or solid character or quality: *claims lacking in substance. *

7.consistency; body: *soup without much substance. *

8.the meaning or gist, as of speech or writing. 9.something that has separate or independent existence.

10.Philosophy. a.something that exists by itself and in which accidents or attributes inhere; that which receives modifications and is not itself a mode; something that is causally active; something that is more than an event. b.the essential part of a thing; essence. c.a thing considered as a continuing whole.

11.possessions, means, or wealth: *to squander one’s substance. *

12.Linguistics. the articulatory or acoustic reality or the perceptual manifestation of a word or other construction (distinguished from form).

13.a standard of weights for paper.

ac·ci·dent http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png/ˈækhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngsɪhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngdənt/Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciationak-si-duhhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngnt]Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
*–noun *1.an undesirable or unfortunate happening that occurs unintentionally and usually results in harm, injury, damage, or loss; casualty; mishap: *automobile accidents. *2.Law. such a happening resulting in injury that is in no way the fault of the injured person for which compensation or indemnity is legally sought. 3.any event that happens unexpectedly, without a deliberate plan or cause. 4.chance; fortune; luck: *I was there by accident. *5.a fortuitous circumstance, quality, or characteristic: *an accident of birth. *6.Philosophy. any entity or event contingent upon the existence of something else. 7.Geology. a surface irregularity, usually on a small scale, the reason for which is not apparent.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I’m saying that reality is real because God makes it so. If God suddenly decided that Mars isn’t real anymore, it wouldn’t be - it would cease to exist.

The fact that a given molecular structure makes a given thing is a reality because of God’s constant “thought” keeping it so. As I said, if God were to cease thinking of anything, it would cease to be. He “holds everything in being,” as the Scripture says. When the priest says the words of consecration over the host, God alters the reality for the little space that the host occupies, so that the reality in that space so that whatever it happens to be made of, it’s the body of Christ.

Like I said, if God wanted to make the universe out of the four elements rather than atoms, He could have. If He wants to alter the way the universe is made up in the space the host occupies, He can do that too.

In transubstantiation, God doesn’t make anything stop being real, He changes what reality is.

Sorry, Lazer, that i’m slow to understand. Are you saying the reality is that Jesus flesh transforms into bread? or is the reality that the bread turns into Jesus flesh? or is the reality something else?

 

[Lazerlike42]

Thank you, Dog. To help me understand you, which definition of substace should i use and which definition of accidents should i use?

sub·stance http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png/ˈsʌbhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngstəns/Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciationsuhb-stuhhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngns]Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation*–noun *
1.that of which a thing consists; physical matter or material: *form and substance. *

2.a species of matter of definite chemical composition: *a chalky substance. *

3.[controlled substance.](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=controlled substance)

4.the subject matter of thought, discourse, study, etc.

5.the actual matter of a thing, as opposed to the appearance or shadow; reality.

6.substantial or solid character or quality: *claims lacking in substance. *

7.consistency; body: *soup without much substance. *

8.the meaning or gist, as of speech or writing. 9.something that has separate or independent existence.

10.Philosophy. a.something that exists by itself and in which accidents or attributes inhere; that which receives modifications and is not itself a mode; something that is causally active; something that is more than an event. b.the essential part of a thing; essence. c.a thing considered as a continuing whole.

11.possessions, means, or wealth: *to squander one’s substance. *

12.Linguistics. the articulatory or acoustic reality or the perceptual manifestation of a word or other construction (distinguished from form).

13.a standard of weights for paper.

ac·ci·dent http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png/ˈækhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngsɪhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngdənt/Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciationak-si-duhhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngnt]Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
*–noun *1.an undesirable or unfortunate happening that occurs unintentionally and usually results in harm, injury, damage, or loss; casualty; mishap: *automobile accidents. *2.Law. such a happening resulting in injury that is in no way the fault of the injured person for which compensation or indemnity is legally sought. 3.any event that happens unexpectedly, without a deliberate plan or cause. 4.chance; fortune; luck: *I was there by accident. *5.a fortuitous circumstance, quality, or characteristic: *an accident of birth. *6.Philosophy. any entity or event contingent upon the existence of something else. 7.Geology. a surface irregularity, usually on a small scale, the reason for which is not apparent.

Substance - #5

Accident - None of the above.

This page has a pretty good explanation of the concept of substance and accidents. It’s also very short. Read it over, and then ask questions based on it. The language is a little tough in this particular article, but it’s right on and short. So read it, then come back and try to put it in your own words, and we’ll try to correct any misunderstandings, and we’ll go from there.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Sorry, Lazer, that i’m slow to understand. Are you saying the reality is that Jesus flesh transforms into bread? or is the reality that the bread turns into Jesus flesh? or is the reality something else?

Let’s deal with the substance, accident thing. That will make this question much easier to answer, and it will limit the multiple thoughts you have going on at once. That’s probably half of your problem . You’ve got about 12 different questions all going on at once, with people answering them left and right, and you’re trying too keep your thoughts straight. One thing at a time.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Soc. I can’t answer this question until I understand what you mean by “The divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ is the Spirit of God in Christ.”

From the way you say this, I am beginning to question whether you affirm the Incarnation in the same way that I do. Tell, me, Soc. How do you understand the incarnation?

Correct me if i’m wrong, but what i believe the Scriptures teach is that there is only one God; and the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; yet the three persons are in some way self aware and aware of the others. That is, God is one what in three whos. I believe the Scriptures teach that Jesus was, and still is, 100% God and 100% man. When i said, “the Spirit of God in Christ” i was trying to make a distinction between the human soul of Jesus and the Son of God in Jesus.

Did i pass the test?

 

[DrPiano]

Soc,

I think murphdog gave you an excellent definition of what he means by substance and accidents. I quote:

The substance of something is what it is.

The accidents of something are what it appears to be.

This is really quite an excellent definition and I do not believe he needs to pick out of your list of “dictionary definitions” as they are often incomplete (your dictionary certainly leaves out his definition of accidents). A dictionary is not an end-all, be-all source of what words mean. Read his own definition again.

What happens in the Eucharist is that Jesus Christ, the second person of the Trinity takes on a disguise. He appears to be bread and wine. In reality, what appears to be bread and wine are his body, blood, soul, and divinity. These are indivisible. You cannot have one without the other 3 (you cannot have Jesus’ body without his divinity). However, similar to the way the Holy Spirit appeared as a dove at Jesus’ baptism or the way God appeared as a cloud and a pillar of fire during the Exodus, Jesus appears as bread and wine. They are not bread and wine, although they appear to be so. Its a disguise. It is also a disguise that MEANS something. It REALLY is Jesus, but he chose that disguise for what it MEANS.

But this brings me back to my last post, one I can’t help but notice you didn’t answer:

For, i take it that the “divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ” is the Spirit of God in Christ. Is this your inclination now, too, Doc, or are you of the opinion that the Eucharist contains only the flesh and blood of Christ?
Soc. I can’t answer this question until I understand what you mean by “The divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ is the Spirit of God in Christ.”

From the way you say this, I am beginning to question whether you affirm the Incarnation in the same way that I do. Tell, me, Soc. How do you understand the incarnation?

 

[DrPiano]

Correct me if i’m wrong, but what i believe the Scriptures teach is that there is only one God, and the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God, yet the three persons are in some way self aware and aware of the others. That is, God is one what in three whos. I believe the Scriptures teach that Jesus was, and still is, 100% God and 100% man. When i said, “the Spirit of God in Christ” i was trying to make a distinction between the human soul of Jesus and the Spirit of the Son of God in Jesus.

Did i pass the test?

Ah. My apologies. We cross-posted. Yes, there is one God (what) and three persons (who’s).

I still wonder what you mean by “The Spirit of the Son of God in Jesus.” The way you say it (PLEASE correct me if I’m wrong) makes it sound like that “Spirit of the Son of God in Jesus” can somehow be separated from the human part of Jesus, as if we can really talk about them as two separate things.

Also, I wonder, when do you think God became incarnate? When did the incarnation happen?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Substance - #5

Accident - None of the above.

This page has a pretty good explanation of the concept of substance and accidents. It’s also very short. Read it over, and then ask questions based on it. The language is a little tough in this particular article, but it’s right on and short. So read it, then come back and try to put it in your own words, and we’ll try to correct any misunderstandings, and we’ll go from there.

Here is Aristotle’s definition of accidents from the link you gave to me, Lazer:

Accidents are the modifications that substance undergo, but that do not change the kind of thing that each substance is. Accidents only exist when they are the accidents of some substance. Examples are colors, weight, motion.

Unless you think we should modify the definition, this will be what i will use to think this through. Sound like a good plan?

 

[DrPiano]

Let’s deal with the substance, accident thing. That will make this question much easier to answer, and it will limit the multiple thoughts you have going on at once. That’s probably half of your problem . You’ve got about 12 different questions all going on at once, with people answering them left and right, and you’re trying too keep your thoughts straight. One thing at a time.

I’m with Lazerlike on this one I’ll defer my questions/answers to only those dealing with this area for now

 

[Lazerlike42]

Here is Aristotle’s definition of accidents from the link you gave to me, Lazer:

Accidents are the modifications that substance undergo, but that do not change the kind of thing that each substance is. Accidents only exist when they are the accidents of some substance. Examples are colors, weight, motion.

Unless you think we should modify the definition, this will be what i will use to think this through. Sound like a good plan?

The definition is fine, but please put it in your own words so we can verify that you understand what the definition says. There’s lots of ways I can imagine a person misunderstanding that.

 

[Quarles47]

I really want to know the truth about Holy Communion, as the antagonists’ argument is one reason why i have not returned to the faith of my youth. Please help this agonist get the genuine gist of the true tale of the Eucharist.

Listen, this is a matter of faith: faith grounded in reality.

You have faith that your car will carry you down the road, although you can not see the engine. And you have faith that the engine will run even thou you can not see the moving parts. The same will be with the Eucharist. One day you will know what will only be sustained by faith at the moment.

I can not give you faith, nor can any of the theologians. Faith comes from God. But only you can accept it.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates4Jesus forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Here is Aristotle’s definition of accidents from the link you gave to me, Lazer:

Accidents​

are the modifications that substance undergo, but that do not change the kind of thing that each substance is. Accidents only exist when they are the accidents of some substance. Examples are colors, weight, motion.

Unless you think we should modify the definition, this will be what i will use to think this through. Sound like a good plan?


​

The definition is fine, but please put it in your own words so we can verify that you understand what the definition says. There’s lots of ways I can imagine a person misunderstanding that.

Having read much of Aristotle’s teacher Plato, i believe i would not change the definition at all, but would use the same words. However, if you think i misunderstand something, please let me know.

 

[maryj]

Soc,

I think murphdog gave you an excellent definition of what he means by substance and accidents. I quote:

This is really quite an excellent definition and I do not believe he needs to pick out of your list of “dictionary definitions” as they are often incomplete (your dictionary certainly leaves out his definition of accidents). A dictionary is not an end-all, be-all source of what words mean. Read his own definition again.

What happens in the Eucharist is that Jesus Christ, the second person of the Trinity takes on a disguise. He appears to be bread and wine. In reality, what appears to be bread and wine are his body, blood, soul, and divinity. These are indivisible. You cannot have one without the other 3 (you cannot have Jesus’ body without his divinity). However, similar to the way the Holy Spirit appeared as a dove at Jesus’ baptism or the way God appeared as a cloud and a pillar of fire during the Exodus, Jesus appears as bread and wine. They are not bread and wine, although they appear to be so. Its a disguise. It is also a disguise that MEANS something. It REALLY is Jesus, but he chose that disguise for what it MEANS.

But this brings me back to my last post, one I can’t help but notice you didn’t answer:

I think that instead of disguise a better way to put this would be, veiled. Here’s a statment gleened from another thread about Transubstantiation: based on analogy from OT to NT.

Moses climbed Sinai and God gave him the covenant and the stone tablets. When Moses returned to the people his face shone and he covered it with a veil. Moses was not allowed to look upon the face of God because to do so would have caused his death. In John Jesus offers us his body and blood as true food and true drink hidden under the appearances of bread and wine. This is the body and blood of the new covenant. Like Moses we cannot look upon the face and glory of God. Moses face was veiled because it shone with the glory of God. Likewise, Jesus is veiled in the Eucharist. ( Posted by Pax)

 

[AliciaCL]

Are you saying, Alicia, that the what is a mystery, as well as the how? (Please see post # 358.)

The Eucharist is a mystery. Human beings have trouble understanding just as the apostles did, how bread and wine could be Jesus’ flesh and blood. The how is by divine spirit but the method would never be understandable in human scientific terms. The hangup on molecular makeup is thinking in the human vein. We cannot fully comprehend the Eucharist, we accept that it is Jesus on faith. You can’t prove someting known or accepted on faith.This is similar to the circular points made by atheists. If one does not believe in the Eucharist they are simply missing out.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

This is good, Lazer, you would make ancient Socrates proud!



The first step to talking with someone and not at him is to come to an agreement about the meaning of the words you both use. We now have these two definitions:

**Substance **is the actual matter of a thing, as opposed to the appearance or shadow; reality. Substance is what makes a thing what it is, and that which cannot be changed without changing the thing itself. An example is the molecules H2O making up snow.

Accidents are the modifications that substance undergo, but that do not change the kind of thing that each substance is. Accidents only exist when they are the accidents of some substance. Examples are colors, weight, motion.
Now, lets apply these definitions to the point you were trying to explain to me:

I’m saying that reality is real because God makes it so. If God suddenly decided that Mars isn’t real anymore, it wouldn’t be - it would cease to exist.

The fact that a given molecular structure makes a given thing is a reality because of God’s constant “thought” keeping it so. As I said, if God were to cease thinking of anything, it would cease to be. He “holds everything in being,” as the Scripture says. When the priest says the words of consecration over the host, God alters the reality for the little space that the host occupies, so that the reality in that space so that whatever it happens to be made of, it’s the body of Christ.

Like I said, if God wanted to make the universe out of the four elements rather than atoms, He could have. If He wants to alter the way the universe is made up in the space the host occupies, He can do that too.

In transubstantiation, God doesn’t make anything stop being real, He changes what reality is.

A clarification:

The substance of something is what it is.

The accidents of something are what it appears to be.

It helps me to use examples, so i’ll use that of a snowball. The substance of a snowball is, on a molecular level, H2O. An accident of a snowball is that it is white.

Now, if my schnauzer were to pee on the snowball, the substance would still be H2O, but the accidents might be yellow and white. Then again, if my son were to take the snowball inside and put it in the microwave oven and heat it for 10 minutes, the substance would change to hydrogen and oxygen molecules, as the snowball melts and then transforms into a gaseous form. The change of substance would, in effect, change what the snowball is. That is, it would cease to be a snowball.

Am i understanding substance and accidents correctly, Lazer?

 

[DrPiano]

I think that instead of disguise a better way to put this would be, veiled. Here’s a statment gleened from another thread about Transubstantiation: based on analogy from OT to NT.

Moses climbed Sinai and God gave him the covenant and the stone tablets. When Moses returned to the people his face shone and he covered it with a veil. Moses was not allowed to look upon the face of God because to do so would have caused his death. In John Jesus offers us his body and blood as true food and true drink hidden under the appearances of bread and wine. This is the body and blood of the new covenant. Like Moses we cannot look upon the face and glory of God. Moses face was veiled because it shone with the glory of God. Likewise, Jesus is veiled in the Eucharist. ( Posted by Pax)

Thanks MaryJ. I agree - your terminology of “veiled” is FAR better than my terminology of “disguise”. Thanks!

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Listen, this is a matter of faith: faith grounded in reality.

You have faith that your car will carry you down the road, although you can not see the engine. And you have faith that the engine will run even thou you can not see the moving parts. The same will be with the Eucharist. One day you will know what will only be sustained by faith at the moment.

I can not give you faith, nor can any of the theologians. Faith comes from God. But only you can accept it.

Thank you, Quarles! There is much in which i did not use to have faith (or trust) that i now do trust. Reason is what has changed my mind. I believe God does an excellent job of persuasion through reason.
“Come now, let us reason together,”
says the LORD.
“Though your sins are like scarlet,
they shall be as white as snow;
though they are red as crimson,
they shall be like wool.”

(Isaiah 1:18)

 

[maryj]

(soc)
The pagan religious believers and the Stoic philosophers were looking for God in all the wrong places. It is my opinion that John was showing them that the one whom they were searching was Jesus. He was using all these metaphors to show the pagans that their beliefs were merely symbols of the reality that they could find only in our Lord. Jesus, the bread from heaven, was sent from God to give life to a lost and dying world.

What do you think?

A symbol as opposed to a sign. shall we discuss the differences?

And why was the world lost and dying?

Yes, please explain the difference.

A sign shows Divinity. It is recognizable, shows us(proof) that it comes from God.

There were nine covenants made between God and his people. Dueteronomy shows us the curses for breaking the covenant.
Here’s a breakdown in biblical timeline fashion.
1 One holy couple Adam-Gen 1-3 sign #7
2. One holy family Noah-Gen9 sign: Rainbow
3.one holy tribe Abraham- Gen15,17,22 sign:circumcision
abraham was given 3 covenants Land/ Dynasty(David)/family blessings
4. One holy nation Moses- Ex 24/ Deut 29 sign: Law (giving)
5. one holy kingdom David- 2 Sam. 7 sign: temple
6. One holy, catholic, and apostolic church
JESUS- Mk 14 Sign: the Eucharist

The New Covenant, the everlasting covenant. There is no share in the New Covenant if we remain in the old. Here’s the kicker:
Jesus was sent to take our punishment for breaking our covenant with God. He was the ONLY sacrifice that God would except. And God was the one who gave this sacrifice to us. what a great God, the God of Justice and of Mercy. shall I continue…

 

[maryj]

The Eucharist is a mystery. Human beings have trouble understanding just as the apostles did, how bread and wine could be Jesus’ flesh and blood. The how is by divine spirit but the method would never be understandable in human scientific terms. The hangup on molecular makeup is thinking in the human vein. We cannot fully comprehend the Eucharist, we accept that it is Jesus on faith. You can’t prove someting known or accepted on faith.This is similar to the circular points made by atheists. If one does not believe in the Eucharist they are simply missing out.

And the reason we have faith is through the Grace of God.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

The Eucharist is a mystery. Human beings have trouble understanding just as the apostles did, how bread and wine could be Jesus’ flesh and blood. The how is by divine spirit but the method would never be understandable in human scientific terms. The hangup on molecular makeup is thinking in the human vein. We cannot fully comprehend the Eucharist, we accept that it is Jesus on faith. You can’t prove someting known or accepted on faith.This is similar to the circular points made by atheists. If one does not believe in the Eucharist they are simply missing out.

Thank you, Alicia. I gave this example to someone else to try to express my stress (please tell me what you think):

Lets say that when Christianity was in its infancy the critics of the faith tried to kill it in its cradle. Lets say they removed the stone from Jesus’ tomb and pulled out His body and brought it to Peter and said, “Here is your God; behold, He is dead!”

Lets say Peter replied, “Behold, it’s a miracle! For He is not really dead, He only appears dead. The reality is He is alive–not just in spirit, but in the flesh!”

Would any of us be Christians, today? That’s the kind of struggle i’m having here. When you tell me the bread is not really bread, it’s like i’m being told a corpse is not really dead.
Of course, my story is completely fictional. *What *the truth is, is NO mystery, for it is an historical fact that Jesus got up and walked. How Jesus accomplished this feat is a mystery. If you told me that the how of the Eucharist was a mystery, i would have no problem with that. However, what you are telling me is that the what of the Eucharist is a mystery, which does not make rational sense to me.

See my dilemma? Wanting to believe is not enough. Faith is not desire; its trust in sound and rational evidence.